Forum Thread
False teaching

Birinus, as you know, a verse must be read in the context of its passage, a passage in the context of its book and a book in the context of the whole bible. Bearing that in mind, I find it a strange interpretation of Mark 10:45 to suggest that a ransom was to be paid to anybody except God. How do we benefit by a ransom being paid to anybody else? 

I would suggest the Isaiah 53 is useful for understanding what Jesus Christ says in Mark 10:45  -  unless you want to claim that passage is not talking about the Lord?

I notice you did not comment on what St John says in 1John4:10. Perhaps you will accept what St Paul says in Romans 3:21-26 

"21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."

I could go on but I fear you know all these verses, and others which are relevant, but are determined to try and explain away "penal substition" whatever the bible says - is that so? I hope not and that this exchange is potentially fruitful 

Nersen

I fear you have given us a somewhat tendentious translation of Romans 3:25. Is it NIV? The word translated as 'propitiation' is of course the Greek hilasterion, which is the subject of considerable scholarly debate. John Ziesler in his commentary on Romans gives a good summary. Is it a propitiation of God's wrath? Or to follow CH Dodd and others, does it mean expiation, a wiping away of our sin, rather than placating an angry deity? Or is it a more subtle variation of this argument using the word as it is invariably used in the Septuagint? Here hilasterion is the mercy seat, the lid of the ark of the covenant, the place where the high priest performed the ritual on the Day of Atonement? This reading would see Jesus as the place or means of our atonement.  

Of course Paul uses sacrificial language and imagery in his teaching on the atonement. Personally I think he is not so concerned as to the how of the atonement, but that it has happened. It is interesting, and I think positive, that the early church never defined how either.  

Hello Duncan

ESV quoted - a very accurate and consistent translation  (produced by "scholars" too!)

As you say, "Paul uses sacrificial language and imagery in his teaching on the atonement".  He was part of the early church, of course.  Not sure why this is controversial.... but I am sure it is important.

While I think that substitutiionary atonement is there in the scriptures, it does not always have to be penal - though I think a version of that is there too (not the 'angry God demanding a sacrifice' version which is a caricature of the real doctrine, though certainly preached by some evangelicals!).

Mk 10:45 is substitutionary (the Son of Man does it for others - presumably they could not do it for themselves) but not necessarily penal.

We would be more Biblical if we acknowledged that the Bible offers us a variety of atonement metaphors - none of which on its own will so the job!

OK, Clare - but please show why you think that.....

As others have said below, there is "penal" language used with regard to atonement. It is not the only language used, of course, but it is used. Perhaps you will accept what St Paul says in Romans 3:21-26 :

" But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."

Oh come now, Madeline, that's very unfair.  Nersen fights his corner very well - if you don't agree with him then take him on in debate but it's simply insulting and untrue to imply he's somehow not as bright as other posters or not well grounded in his material.

Hello James- I think the "penal" idea clear in the verses quoted below, eg "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins"

Since St Paul says that God had "passed over sins" in his "forbearance" in the context of  the "redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood", I think it is clear that St Paul is using penal language here.  Why do you think he is not?

As I have said, I am not saying that the "penal" view is the only way to look at the cross - I don't think any "conservative" says that. I am merely saying, as others have, that penal language is used in the bible with regard to the cross.

Nersen, you say:

Since St Paul says that God had "passed over sins" in his "forbearance" in the context of the "redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood", I think it is clear that St Paul is using penal language here. Why do you think he is not?

I think it is not penal language because penal language is about penalty/punishment. The language here is about sacrifice and atonement (for all its faults the NIV translation of hilasterion as "sacrifice of atonement" is much better here than either propitiation or expiation since it preserves the strong cultic sense of the word and is open to either possible process by which atonement might be brought about). If I offend someone, and in order to propitiate them I offer them (say) a bottle of wine as part of my apology that bottle of wine is put forward as a propitiation, but I do not inflict a penalty on it or punish it in any way.

Of course when Jesus gives up his life 'as a ransom for many' it involves suffering for him, but that doesn't per se mean the Father was punishing him.